SITARAM Vs. MULCHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff-respondent in this Court sued for possession of a field which his guardian during his minority has sold to the appellants. At the time of the sale the respondent then a minor signed a letter which stated in detail that necessity for the sale existed. It is urged before me that the respondent was estopped from denying the existence of legal necessity and benefit. It seems sufficient to say that the minor respondent is not shown to have caused or permitted the vendee to believe that necessity existed. The apparent object of taking the letter from the boy was not to assure the vendee that necessity existed but wa3 to prevent the boy from bringing a suit to set aside the sale. Section 115, Evidence Act, then has no application. This ground therefore, fails. It is next urged that necessity did exist. This is a question of fact and I see no reason to disagree with the finding of the lower appellate Court. The fact that the field sold brought in little income is not material. Had it not been sold it would have remained in the possession of the plaintiff.

(2.) THE cash consideration is not shown to have been expended for the benefit of the plaintiff or to have remained intact until he came of age. The appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed. Costs on appellants.